Gordon Marsden: We had a lively exchange on the issue when the Higher Education and Research Bill was in Committee. For the sake of the Whip, and indeed the whole Committee, let me explain that this evidence was prepared by the Centre for Vocational Education Research, whose people are stuffed full of qualifications from the London School of Economics. Even better—we cannot get much better than this—the Centre for Vocational Education Research is funded by the Department for Education and was launched in 2015. It states in its written evidence:
“An employer-led body as proposed by the Bill, in particular in the more competitive labour market of the UK, which does not engage with all relevant stakeholders, will not be able to achieve similar outcomes”
as they do in
“coordinated market economies…in Scandinavian and Western European countries”.
It states that the institute needs to
“bring together all relevant actors beyond the Department for Education and employers.”
It references unions,
“because of their role in life-long learning in the workplace”.
It also states:
“Associations of colleges and learning providers need a clear role in the Institute, and student associations and associations concerned with the interests of particular groups”—
I will not dwell on this now, Ms Dorries, because this will come up with one of our later amendments—
“also need to be involved from the start.”
It suggests that:
“Careers advice and…employment services…essential to balance short and long-term supply and demand in the labour market, need to be similarly engaged.”
That is the view of the Centre for Vocational Education Research, which touches on the three amendments.
I again underline a point made in the evidence submitted by the TUC, which specifically referred to the important role of the union learning fund. This year is the 10th anniversary of the official establishment of the union learning fund. The TUC commissioned an evaluation by academics at  Leeds University Business School and the University of Exeter, based on surveys of employees engaged in training through the ULF and their employers. I will refer to two or three of the key findings. Over two thirds of learners with no previous qualification attained their first qualification as a result of engaging in union-led training. Four in five employees said that they had developed skills that they could transfer to a new job. And two in three said that those made them more effective in their current job.
Equally importantly, half of the employers said that
“their staff were more committed as a result of unions facilitating training and development opportunities.”
Separate analysis showed:
“Union-led training delivers an estimated net contribution to the economy of more than £1.4 billion as a result of a boost to jobs, wages and productivity.”
Those are also cogent points for broadening representation.
Finally, amendment 28 asked for the institute to show
“due regard for broad representation and diversity amongst the group of persons preparing each standard, including—
(a) gender and
(b) the representation of both large and small employers.”
For both your information, Ms Dorries, and the information of the Minister, this is a probing amendment, so we did not intend to include a list of all the potential groups that might be included; that would not have been appropriate at this stage. The reasons why we have highlighted those two are fairly obvious, I hope. First, the gender issue has already bulked large in our conversations in Committee. Secondly, because of the key role of large and, in particular, small employers—the Minister will know about the discussions on the delivery of the apprenticeship levy—it is crucial that those groups are involved.
The Minister sang the praises of the Apprenticeship Delivery Board the other day. It may be a fine body, but it was actually made up of members drawn from a relatively narrow section of business and, incidentally, had only one woman among its number. There was no role for others, such as further education providers, universities, trade unions and local authorities. There has been some progress with the number of women on the ADB—it has increased to three—but it is important that those lessons are taken on to a broad representation and diversity being found among the group of persons preparing each standard.
Without wishing to stereotype, it is a fact that in areas where we need to have a great degree of training and apprenticeships—the service sector, healthcare and social care—there will be a large number of women. It is really important to get a strong degree of gender diversity in those groups preparing those standards.
Keith Smith, the director of funding and programmes at the Skills Funding Agency, said recently that, although 20,000 employers were expected to fall within the scope of the levy when it launches in April 2017, just 400 employers, or 2%, will cover about half the entire levy. He said:
“That top 400 will carry a big load. Some of those bigger employers will be paying over £30 million a year in terms of the apprenticeship levy.”
I am not dissing the role of large employers, and I agree with Keith Smith that it is critically important that they bulk large in the deliberation and consideration process for preparation of the standards.
I speak from my experience as a constituency MP, as BAE Systems is just down the road in Warton. As many know, BAE Systems is a key part of the aerospace and defence industry and a greater trainer and supporter of apprenticeships and degrees taken by its workforce. It is less well known that, on the whole, for every one job that is directly created and maintained by a company such as BAE Systems, up to two or three additional jobs are created and dependent on them in the supply chain of much smaller companies. That supply chain in different parts of the industry can be very sector-based and geographically diverse, or it can be geographically focused in a strong area, as is the case with BAE Systems at Warton—in that case in and around west Lancashire.
I only labour that point to indicate the strong and important connection of co-operation and collaboration between large and small employers. That is organically delivered with a company such as BAE Systems or ADS or a range of other large companies where the same applies. However, when small employers, which are not in that position, are to be involved in this process, it is crucial that they have a role in preparing standards. Funding for employers that do not pay the levy, as well as all the top-ups and additional payments, will come from the money that levy-paying companies do not spend from the overall pot.
Revised Government estimates in the autumn statement show that the expected yield from the levy has dropped from £3 billion to around £2.8 billion over the next five years. I think those figures of £3 billion to £2.8 billion encompass the whole yield of the levy, but I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.
The original statement on the levy, made by the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), indicated that £2.5 billion of that £3 billion roughly related to England, and I assume that proportion is maintained in the revised estimate. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide the new estimate of the expected yield from the levy in respect of England only, which is the basis on which we are discussing the institute today.
As the Minister will know, the AELP has already voiced its disappointment that the Government have not given assurances for a minimum fixed budget to be allocated to non-levy payers for the next five years, irrespective of how much money is left for them in the levy pot. The association is concerned that the impact of the shortfall may be felt disproportionately by smaller business:
“The announcement of the levy over 12 months ago has resulted in an increased commitment from large employers to offer more apprenticeship opportunities but uncertainty has surrounded the level of government funding that will be available for apprenticeships in non-levy paying smaller employers. Currently SMEs provide more than half of the 905,000 apprenticeships in the country.”
The Minister and I are both on the record praising the abilities and support that small and medium-sized enterprises give their apprentices once they have them on board and have dealt with some of the back office issues. The AELP goes on to say:
“We need to ensure that much needed apprenticeship places will be available to young people in towns and rural areas where large levy paying employers aren’t operating.”

Kelvin Hopkins: It is a pleasure to see you chairing our proceedings again this morning, Ms Dorries. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South.
I do not want to be immodest, but I do have considerable experience in this field. I spent four years as the chair of governors at Luton College of Higher Education, which had welcomed thousands of apprentices through its doors. I have spent a total of 30 years on post-16 education governing bodies so I have very definite views. I have worked in the trade union movement; I was at the TUC for five years and I taught on trade union courses, so I have seen the involvement of the TUC and the trade unions in education. I spent 18 years working for NALGO and then Unison, which had a large department of education and undertook correspondence courses for local government offices.
I have seen a whole range of activities that are relevant to apprenticeships and post-16 education in the broadest sense, and I have definite views on what governing bodies should be like. They should not be too small or too large; they can become ungainly and unco-ordinated if they are too large. Equally, if they are too small and narrow in experience, they do not do a good job. I have seen both.
There is an optimum size for governing bodies, but I am talking about educational institutes, rather than the board of the institute. That board, however, will need the same kind of representation and a range of skills, and I have spoken in previous sittings about the importance of not having too narrow a field. If one has only a particular kind of business-led model, with small numbers of businesspeople of the same mindset and no challenge to that view, they will not necessarily pick up all the important issues that need to be discussed and considered when the board makes decisions and recommendations. Having a small body from a narrow field is not right.
The 1993 incorporation of post-16 education bodies—further education and sixth-form colleges—came from the then Government insisting on small, business-led governing bodies, which was a mistake. The governing body of which I was a member did not follow that model; we had a range of people with educational skills, a good degree of gender balance, and people from the community who were skilled in their fields and visibly representative of the very diverse community in which I live and which I represent. That is important as well, and we had skilled people with legal and financial qualifications. All that is so important in having a successful governing body.
One has to submit oneself to challenge if one is leading an important body, and intelligent, competent people have to be on board, who have a range of views and will challenge things from time to time, but who will work positively and be supportive. The body should not go off in one direction, not be challenged and make mistakes. Mistakes have been made.
Even back in the 1990s, there were mistakes and some principals and leaders of educational institutions got out of control. They started paying themselves vast salaries and travelling abroad—ostensibly to recruit students, but actually they were just on jollies and looking after themselves. The Conservative Government of the time realised they had made a mistake and in the end came round to the kind of governing body that we had in the sixth-form college. It was a body of about 14 or 15 people, with a range of skills and representation. It is very important for the Government to recognise this point and to recommend, either in the Bill or through secondary legislation, what governing bodies and the board of the institute should look like. In particular, there should be representation from women, minority communities and trade unions, all of whom have expertise that will make the board function much better than if it was just led by a small group of businessmen.
As we know, the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses often have different perspectives on business representation. The CBI typically represents global corporations, big business, banks and so on, whereas the FSB has an understanding of what it is like to be a small businessperson and of the needs of small companies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South said, it is very important that small companies are represented, as well as large companies, and that we have those different perspectives.
I have probably said enough to reinforce my hon. Friend’s points and to try to persuade the Minister and the Government that what we are saying is sensible. It should be recognised and, at some point, included either in the legislation or recommendations by the Government. With those few words, I shall conclude.

Robert Halfon: No, because this is about technical and professional education. There are 15 routes, and people have many other ways of doing the vital training for the other areas that the hon. Gentleman mentions. People can do an individual apprenticeship, they can do part of the Government’s training scheme or they can do work experience. This is about addressing our skills deficit and, similarly to what happens in other countries, ensuring that we have the technical education that our country needs.
On capacity, the institute will ensure that arrangements are in place for evaluating assessments. There are different options for employers and others to develop the standards. We will discuss the assessments later, but I will set out the current figures on apprenticeship assessment. On standards, some 61% of all apprentice starts have an end-point assessment organisation available to them, whether or not they are close to needing an end-point assessment. That figure rises to 94% for all apprentice starts, including those who are expected to reach the gateway—the end of their apprenticeship—within the next 12 months, where an organisation is close to being put on the register. We are considering a number of options and we will discuss them later, but the situation is not as bleak as has been said in respect of the assessment organisations and what is being planned and done.
The hon. Gentleman addressed the levy and the autumn statement, and I am pleased to say that we will still have £2.5 billion available for the levy, regardless of the announcements in the autumn statement. The Government are determined to create an apprenticeship nation, and by 2020 the spending will have doubled to £2.5 billion. We have discussed the providers, but I am happy to reflect on action that could be taken to ensure that SMEs are offering training that is relevant to their apprentices. I am pleased by the response from the providers so far.
The amendment raises other issues of concern. We need to learn from previous models, but there is a risk that requiring specific representation on the panels may not always be appropriate and may result in standards that do not have labour market currency. The purpose of the reform is quality, not quantity. If the panels try to do too much to please too many different groups, ultimately they might not support young people and adults in getting high-quality technical education to progress into skilled employment. The problem is that there is a proliferation of qualifications.
I agree that the groups should be as representative as possible, however. The Sainsbury report makes it clear that the institute will be best placed to ensure that the right people are brought together to develop the standards. Institute staff with expertise in specific occupational areas will know which employers and other stakeholders are suitable to develop standards that are representative of the occupations within the specific routes. The institute is independent. It should be for the institute to manage the composition of groups, and we should not constrain that process.
As for the approval of the groups that are not convened, it is for the groups to come together to put proposals to the institute. That has been the hallmark of the employer-led reforms, which, again, have been based on best practice in other countries. The groups should be flexible enough to reflect the requirements of specific occupations. In some occupations, such as blacksmithing, there are few large employers, while there may be other occupations in which there are no smaller employers or in which there is a bias towards a particular gender. On that point, I remind the Committee that 53% of apprentices are women, which shows that we are making significant progress, although of course we need to do a lot more to get women into STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—and other key areas.
There are other ways in which views can be taken into account through the institute’s wider structure. Crucially, each route will have its own panel-making decision about the provision within that route. Standards will also be subject to peer review, the purpose of which is to ensure that the proposals meet wider needs. The institute’s board is open to applicants with a wide variety of interests. We hope to announce the composition of the board—genuinely—in the very near future. I firmly believe that once that announcement has been made, the hon. Member for Blackpool South will agree that there is important representation.

Gordon Marsden: I beg to move amendment 14,in schedule 1, page24,line6, leave out “as it considers appropriate”.
This amendment would require the Institute to publish apprenticeship assessment plans for all standards.
The Minister may want to say the same sorts of things on amendment 14 as he touched on under amendment 13. Nevertheless, I rise to move the amendment because it would require the institute to publish apprenticeship assessment plans for all standards. I hear  what the Minister says about numbers and everything else. I shall reflect on that and drill down into the detail. However, recent analysis shows—this, of course, is real-time experience—that there are no approved awarding organisations for over 40% of learner starts on the new apprentice standards. Number crunching on the Government data that were published in October suggests that that applied to 1,790 or 42% of the total number of starts so far on the employer-developed programmes.
I accept, as I am sure will the Minister—it must make him tear his hair out at times—that because moving from frameworks to standards is an iterative process, there will be complications. There will be stats that do not appear to fit, and all the rest of it. I am not criticising the fact that there will be an element of confusion. However, those apprentices on the standards will have to pass end-point assessments for the first time, so those assessments have to be carried out by organisations that have been cleared for the task by Government or the Skills Funding Agency-registered apprentice assessment organisations.
I come back to my opening remarks on the previous group of amendments about the degree of uncertainty that still exists about how this will settle down in terms of what the institute does as opposed to other well established bodies such as Ofqual. Because of that, it is important that we have transparency on who is being cleared and who is doing the clearing.
The Minister may be familiar with the observations of Dr Susan Pember, who stood down as the civil service head of further education and skills investment in February 2013. I am very familiar with Dr Pember. On one famous occasion, when we had challenged the Government on various things, she said that we had been challenging them too much. The Minster’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), said that we were absolutely right and that that was the role of the Opposition. Dr Pember has said:
“It is diabolical to let an apprentice start a programme without explaining not only what the end test will contain, but where it will be, what shape it will take and who will be the organisation—
that is the key point—
“to oversee and manage the process.”
We are told that the Department for Education—the Minister can contradict this if he wishes and it would be very pleasant were he able to do so accurately—is still struggling to recruit enough of those assessment organisation. Indeed, one of its spokespersons said:
“We know there is more work to be done to ensure we have the range and breadth of high quality assessment organisations we need.”
We are also concerned that the slowness with which this process has been taken forward has meant that students have not started on some apprenticeship standards for two years after they were launched. I appreciate that this refers to matters that took place not on the Minister’s watch, but it will colour and inform what people think about what the new institute does and what guidance the new institute is given in this respect by Ministers. The backstory, as it were, is an important one.

Robert Halfon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his scrutiny. I need to explain the context of why we have chosen to go down this route. We have had a lot of discussion about the quality and evaluation of apprenticeship assessments. Ensuring consistency between assessments will mean that an apprentice can be sure that, wherever they obtain their apprenticeship, they are being judged on a fair and equal basis.
Our aim is that the institute should work to ensure that an apprentice in Hull and an engineering apprentice in Blackpool both have consistent and high-quality assessment. The power that allows the institute to charge for its role in reviewing assessments is critical to enabling it to discharge its function of evaluating assessments effectively.
Other organisations approved by the institute to carry out a quality assurance role in relation to apprenticeship assessments, such as professional bodies, are likely to charge. If the institute were unable to charge, there would be an increased incentive for employers to use the institute instead of the other options, and the extra running costs would ultimately fall on the taxpayer. It follows that, like other organisations, the institute should be able to charge for its work and to recover all its costs.
Importantly, the specific fee is likely to be adjusted over time for a range of reasons, such as to reflect any changes in the institute’s approach to carrying out evaluations and as assessments are updated and altered. Additionally, as the Committee will appreciate, the institute is still finalising the operational detail on how it will carry out some of its functions, including the evaluation of assessments, which we have just debated.
The actual amount that the institute will need to charge is not known. It is conceivable, although it has not been decided, that there could be different fees in different cases to take into account the cost of evaluation in different sectors. I reassure the Committee that the policy is that organisations should be able to charge only to cover their costs. We will make that clear to the institute in the guidance letter. Of course, the institute will be able to charge only if authorised to do so, and subject to the restrictions set out in the regulations.
It is likely that the fees would need to be reviewed quite frequently to ensure that they were appropriate, which is why hon. Members will welcome the provision to allow for the introduction of a statutory instrument without requiring Parliament to debate the matter each time a fee changes. The negative procedure ensures that the fee levels can be updated relatively quickly, if necessary, thus protecting the taxpayer from unwanted financial risk. The procedure is consistent with the Secretary of State’s approach to charging fees for certificating framework-based apprenticeships and, more recently, for English apprenticeship certificates—we are doing that in parallel. Even so, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South pointed out, regulations tabled under the negative procedure can still be debated in Parliament. If there were real demand, scrutiny could still be achieved.
Amendment 31 raises the same issue. I agree that any matter left to secondary legislation requires scrutiny, but the negative procedure provides for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny and would enable debate if the secondary legislation was prayed against. In the event that the institute wishes to introduce an application or process, or to update the fee levels, the negative procedure allows for that to be done as quickly as possible, which is consistent with the Secretary of State’s approach to apprenticeships.
As the institute is not yet established, flexibility is needed to prescribe the most appropriate method. We may also wish to seek advice from the institute and others on what those measures should be. I confirm that, at most, the fees should cover all the costs connected with carrying out the function.
I turn to amendment 33. The Secretary of State has powers to make arrangements to develop new technical education provision. The Bill would allow the Secretary of State to transfer those powers to the institute to ensure continuity. I hope it will reassure the hon. Member for Blackpool South and his colleagues if I give a broad overview. We are progressing the arrangements that we are putting in place before the institute takes on its wider responsibility.
The hon. Gentleman will know that creating this new technical education provision is a complex process. Although we are committed to taking the reforms quickly, and particularly to establishing all 15 technical education routes as soon as possible, we recognise that certain lead-in times are required for reform. The Government plan to phase the reforms in progressively; development will commence before the institute remit is expanded in April 2018.
We have already talked about the occupational maps and the routes to identify occupations. We know that employers will play an especially important role in assessing the standards, including articulating the knowledge, skills and behaviours needed. I assure hon. Members that the negative procedure provides sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. We have thought carefully about the right balance of primary and secondary legislation and about which procedure to use for secondary legislation. We have set out the rationale in the delegated powers memo for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place and I look forward to reflecting on that Committee’s response. I hope that the hon. Member for Blackpool South will feel reassured enough to withdraw the amendment.

Gordon Marsden: I beg to move amendment 30, page27,line3, at end insert—
“
Directions given to the Institute by the Secretary of State under this Act shall be subject to—
(a) periodic review, and
(b) consultation by the Institute with—
(i) organisations representing the teaching professions,
(ii) further education bodies and provider organisations,
(iii) employers and employers’ organisations,
(iv) awarding bodies, and
(v) organisations representing students and apprentices.”
Broadly speaking, amendment 30 continues the theme of our other amendments this morning. It is interesting to move the amendment after the Minister’s useful exegesis of the role of the Secretary of State and of the relationship between the Secretary of State and the institute, because it is that relationship that the amendment seeks to probe further. The Government’s policy statement gives those further powers to the Secretary of State, in particular in relation to matters concerning technical education.
It is important to emphasise, and I say this in light of the conversation we have just had about delegated legislation, that these powers are
“to be exercised by direction with no Parliamentary procedure. Directions could include the approval of a qualification, entering into arrangements to ensure a qualification is available for approval (a contract with an organisation), the withdrawal of a qualification and their publication requirements.”
We, like many stakeholders—and I will quote some of the observations they have made—are concerned that some of these changes to technical education could be seen as being rushed, to put it kindly. There is therefore a real need for regular consultation with stakeholders to ensure a successful transition. We are not attempting to launch a lightning attack on the powers of the Secretary of State to do these things, but because of the relative speed with which matters have been taken forward and because we need to get them right, we want to see, first, provision for periodic review and, secondly, some indication of the range of organisations that will be consulted in that process.
Several stakeholders in this area have written to Committee members and submitted written evidence with their concerns. The Committee will be relieved to  learn that I will not read great chunks of all of them, but they form a significant part of the written evidence we have had so far.
The Association of Employers and Learning Providers said in its written evidence that it believes reform proposals may not currently
“be giving sufficient weight to the input of stakeholders and the concerns of, and about, learners”,
and this is relevant across the board in setting up the institute. Stakeholders should be required, and be able, to give their input on directions given by the Secretary of State.
The awarding organisation, City & Guilds—a very distinguished organisation, which from memory is probably the oldest awarding organisation in the country—has commented that it would
“caution against the speed of transition of duties given that the IATE is not yet operational and will have much work to cover embedding Apprenticeship reform… It appears that 2018 is an ambitious timetable to assume full responsibility for all Technical Education as well as Apprenticeships at a time of significant change within both.”
This view was also echoed in the written evidence submitted by the TUC. There are uncanny parallels between some of the issues on the Higher Education and Research Bill—between the establishment of the office for students and the changes taking place in awarding organisations and in qualification assessment—and the concern that trying to do two lots of things simultaneously in a relatively short period of time risks causing some problems. The TUC says this is being implemented in a timeframe
“when major changes to the apprenticeship is taking place, including the rollout of the…levy and related reforms designed to drive up the number of high quality apprenticeships…reform of technical education will need to be phased in over a number of years and this means that a strategy needs to be in place to meet short-term skills pressures… However…there is an urgent need to accelerate measures to build our national skills base”—
because, and I think this is the first reference to Brexit so far in this Committee—
“the economy and labour market faces major challenges as a result of the decision to leave the European Union.”
It goes on to talk about concerns regarding the move to simplify technical qualifications by granting exclusive licences.
Other organisations have commented on this as well. The Association of School and College Leaders
“is concerned about the transfer of responsibility for regulating the validity of vocational qualifications throughout their lifecycle from Ofqual to the newly formed Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.”
City & Guilds has said:
“The Bill is unclear about the future role of Ofqual. If its current major role in the regulation of AOs”—
awarding organisations—
“and qualifications is to be diminished then this should be done properly, openly and with full transitional provisions.”
City & Guilds has talked about the issues of overlap, as indeed has the Association of Colleges in its submission on Second Reading. City & Guilds goes on to talk about its concern
“about creating the apparently stark binary system of education under two governing agencies (Ofqual and the IATE…).”
I do not want to go on about what the various organisations have said, but I will draw out a point that relates to the amendment. What all that is telling me, and possibly a number of members of the Committee and certainly the outside world, is that there is significant concern about the pace of change and acceleration in the Bill. It is not part of my role here today to judge whether the process is too fast, too slow or just right. As I have said on other occasions, although it is nice for Ministers to be able to convince the Opposition, it is even nicer when they can convince the stakeholders with whom they need to work to ensure that the Bill is effective. That is the point we are making with the amendment.
As it stands, the discussion process appears to be two-way, between the Secretary of State and the institute. All those things are of course tied up. If, for the sake of argument, we had had agreement earlier from the Government to place in the Bill more stuff about which stakeholders would be involved in consultation and everything else, I might be less concerned about this appearing to be a two-way process that does not involve many other stakeholders in key areas, which will affect not only their viability but that of the delivery of some of the new technical and apprenticeship qualifications that the Government quite rightly want to progress.
It is a fairly modest thing, therefore, to say that the directions given to the institute by the Secretary of State under the Act should be subject to periodic review. The Minister has already said, perfectly reasonably, that the Secretary of State wishes to reserve to herself certain powers in that respect. That is an entirely proper and right thing for her to do. The institute is therefore not a completely free agent. Equally, however, if that is to be the case, in order to reassure and involve the other stakeholders who need to participate, a process needs  to be indicated in the Bill, which is why we have talked about it being subject to periodic review and to consultation by the institute with a number of representative organisations. We have talked about organisations representing the teaching professions, FE bodies, FE provider organisations, employers and employers organisations, awarding bodies and, crucially, organisations representing students and apprentices. Those groups have been chosen specifically because they have raised in their written evidence concerns about how the process will be taken forward.
There is a secondary point, which I do not want to dwell on because I do not want to be curmudgeonly or critical of either the original Sainsbury review, which included my own head of Blackpool and The Fylde College, Bev Robinson, and which did an excellent job, or the skills plan. Nevertheless, various stakeholders have said that some of the proposals in the schedule—for example, paragraph 11 on the apprenticeship standards and assessment plans—were not fully canvassed in the skills plan. There remain concerns out there about some of those issues, which is yet another reason why we should try to reassure the stakeholders by putting a moderate proposal in the Bill. A periodic review can be whatever the Secretary of State, or Parliament if it comes to that, decides it should be. But the principles of consultation and periodic review, particularly in technical education, which is the new area that will come under the remit of the institute, are important, and that is why we are pressing the point today.